We really can't let this guy get any further can we? Think about it and please add your name by going to the Democratic National Party's web site below!!
~~Diane (MySpace profile: Idaho (STILL) for Edwards)
----------------- Thank You -----------------
From: Virginia STILL for John Edwards (MySpace profile)
Date: Feb 26, 2008 2:55 PM
I wanted to let you know that I am supporting the Democratic National Committee's FEC complaint against John McCain, and hope that you will support it, too.
You can add your name to the growing list of others:
http://www.democrats.org/McCainBusted
Thank you,
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/mccainbusted
Thanks to WeLikeEdwards.com
2.25.2008
John Edwards Backs the 'Iraq/Recession' Campaign
by John DeSio, The Village Voice
February 25, 2008
Though he's officially left the race for the White House John Edwards is still hoping to shape the debate, lending his name to a new "out of Iraq" movement and targeting John McCain for defeat.
Edwards, the former North Carolina senator and twice-failed candidate for Democratic Party's presidential nomination, has signed up along with his wife Elizabeth to help launch a new effort that will present the war in Iraq as fiscally irresponsible, and place much of the responsibility for the war on Senator McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president.
The "Iraq/Recession" campaign, led by a coalition of unions and activist groups such as SEIU, Move On, and the Center for American Progress, will look to tie economic troubles at home to military spending abroad. It will also look to highlight the choice between an anti-war Democrat and a pro-war Republican. Edwards reeled off a laundry list of issues — from healthcare to the mortgage crisis to the potential recession to the number of Americans living in poverty — as symptoms of overspending in Iraq.
"All these things are made much worse by concern about what's happening in Iraq," said Edwards in a conference call with reporters. "The war in Iraq, at least from my perspective, needs to be brought to an end for a lot of reasons."
Edwards criticized McCain's support for the war and his recent statements that he would be willing to stay in Iraq for "100 years," if that's how long it takes to win.
"This is not what the American people want to see," said Edwards. "If they see a direct connection between the spending in Iraq, the economic anxiety caused by that, the price of oil, the price of gasoline, all those things, and this ongoing war in Iraq. For that reason, among others, they want to see this war brought to an end."
The $20 million initiative will target not only McCain but several Republican senators facing tough reelection battles this year. But it was clear from Edwards' comments that the McCain is the top priority of the effort.
"We want to make certain that the American people know that they have a very clear choice in this election," said Edwards. "And that choice is between a Democratic nominee for president that will end this war and who will focus on all these issues that are creating economic anxiety and insecurity among so many Americans, because that's what the American people want to see; and the other choice being Senator McCain, the Republican nominee, who intends to continue the war, to continue the incredibly failed policies of George Bush."
Edwards added, "The American people deserve that choice. I think it will be absolutely clear what the voters want when that choice is presented to them."
February 25, 2008
Though he's officially left the race for the White House John Edwards is still hoping to shape the debate, lending his name to a new "out of Iraq" movement and targeting John McCain for defeat.
Edwards, the former North Carolina senator and twice-failed candidate for Democratic Party's presidential nomination, has signed up along with his wife Elizabeth to help launch a new effort that will present the war in Iraq as fiscally irresponsible, and place much of the responsibility for the war on Senator McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president.
The "Iraq/Recession" campaign, led by a coalition of unions and activist groups such as SEIU, Move On, and the Center for American Progress, will look to tie economic troubles at home to military spending abroad. It will also look to highlight the choice between an anti-war Democrat and a pro-war Republican. Edwards reeled off a laundry list of issues — from healthcare to the mortgage crisis to the potential recession to the number of Americans living in poverty — as symptoms of overspending in Iraq.
"All these things are made much worse by concern about what's happening in Iraq," said Edwards in a conference call with reporters. "The war in Iraq, at least from my perspective, needs to be brought to an end for a lot of reasons."
Edwards criticized McCain's support for the war and his recent statements that he would be willing to stay in Iraq for "100 years," if that's how long it takes to win.
"This is not what the American people want to see," said Edwards. "If they see a direct connection between the spending in Iraq, the economic anxiety caused by that, the price of oil, the price of gasoline, all those things, and this ongoing war in Iraq. For that reason, among others, they want to see this war brought to an end."
The $20 million initiative will target not only McCain but several Republican senators facing tough reelection battles this year. But it was clear from Edwards' comments that the McCain is the top priority of the effort.
"We want to make certain that the American people know that they have a very clear choice in this election," said Edwards. "And that choice is between a Democratic nominee for president that will end this war and who will focus on all these issues that are creating economic anxiety and insecurity among so many Americans, because that's what the American people want to see; and the other choice being Senator McCain, the Republican nominee, who intends to continue the war, to continue the incredibly failed policies of George Bush."
Edwards added, "The American people deserve that choice. I think it will be absolutely clear what the voters want when that choice is presented to them."
2.20.2008
Finally, They 'The Media' Notices John
Since the news is still pending on the Edwards endorsement, there really isn't a lot of news coming out about John.... sure I could talk about Obama or Clinton but what kind of Edwards Democrat would that make me? I do want to point to my favorite news article of the night: At last, John Edwards has everybody's attention. Let me just say that my favorite part of the article is at the very end in regards to his pending endorsement,
"Talking with reporters Monday, Obama said he doubted Edwards would endorse either of his former rivals. And why should he be in any hurry? For a candidate who struggled to be heard, the anticipation every time he clears his throat must be nice."
John shouldn't be in any hurry because like I said yesterday, when he makes that decision, I want to make sure he didn't make a hasty choice because I am going to trust his judgment -- no matter who he picks. You know.... he may not endorse anyone.... and that case.... that means I have to vote McCain because if John can't trust a Democrat who can you trust? (Calm down, this is a joke lol ....maybe) ;) Either way.... I hope the media is holding their breath in pain for that hot story that John Edwards endorsed ___fill in the blank candidate___.
"Talking with reporters Monday, Obama said he doubted Edwards would endorse either of his former rivals. And why should he be in any hurry? For a candidate who struggled to be heard, the anticipation every time he clears his throat must be nice."
John shouldn't be in any hurry because like I said yesterday, when he makes that decision, I want to make sure he didn't make a hasty choice because I am going to trust his judgment -- no matter who he picks. You know.... he may not endorse anyone.... and that case.... that means I have to vote McCain because if John can't trust a Democrat who can you trust? (Calm down, this is a joke lol ....maybe) ;) Either way.... I hope the media is holding their breath in pain for that hot story that John Edwards endorsed ___fill in the blank candidate___.
2.19.2008
Obama Doesn't Recognize Our Voice?
I know many of you are chopping at the bit already about my title 'Obama Doesn't Recognize Our Voice'. I came across this article, The Courtship of John Edwards, which shared Obama's comments about what an Edwards endorsement could mean for his campaign. Obama was quoted to saying,
"I think John still has an enormous following, I think he has a lot of credibility and so we would love to have his support," Obama said. "But right now, what I think is most important is for me to make sure that I am getting out and talking to voters."
What will be "most helpful ultimately," Obama said, "is that the people have a sense that I will be fighting for them in the White House, that my priorities are their priorities. If they know that, then the endorsements will probably have less sway."
So, in my opinion, Obama has just reduced the meaning of John's endorsement. I too believe it is important to get out to the voters in the closing months of the primaries fight. However, we, Edwards Democrats, are still voters too in the general election. There are approximately 500,000+ and counting of us out there who support John Edwards. Our votes don't count? Our voices don't matter? If I remember correctly, as the author of this article pointed out, John Edwards said he would fight for me. Not Obama. He isn't into "fighting". All I have to say is that by him saying that people don't look to endorsements isn't swaying me towards him. I and many other Edwards Democrats are actively waiting to see who John endorses. It is important to me because he knows Clinton and Obama better than we ever will. I trust his judgement to choose a leader for this country.... if it isn't going to be John Edwards, then who? I find Obama's comments arrogant. He just brushed the meeting and endorsement possibility aside. However, if he really didn't think it would make a difference.... why visit John at all? I don't know about all of you.... but if there is one thing I know about Edwards Democrats, we are a well organized, hard working group of people. Who wouldn't want us backing them in the general election? Obama needs to wake up.
"I think John still has an enormous following, I think he has a lot of credibility and so we would love to have his support," Obama said. "But right now, what I think is most important is for me to make sure that I am getting out and talking to voters."
What will be "most helpful ultimately," Obama said, "is that the people have a sense that I will be fighting for them in the White House, that my priorities are their priorities. If they know that, then the endorsements will probably have less sway."
So, in my opinion, Obama has just reduced the meaning of John's endorsement. I too believe it is important to get out to the voters in the closing months of the primaries fight. However, we, Edwards Democrats, are still voters too in the general election. There are approximately 500,000+ and counting of us out there who support John Edwards. Our votes don't count? Our voices don't matter? If I remember correctly, as the author of this article pointed out, John Edwards said he would fight for me. Not Obama. He isn't into "fighting". All I have to say is that by him saying that people don't look to endorsements isn't swaying me towards him. I and many other Edwards Democrats are actively waiting to see who John endorses. It is important to me because he knows Clinton and Obama better than we ever will. I trust his judgement to choose a leader for this country.... if it isn't going to be John Edwards, then who? I find Obama's comments arrogant. He just brushed the meeting and endorsement possibility aside. However, if he really didn't think it would make a difference.... why visit John at all? I don't know about all of you.... but if there is one thing I know about Edwards Democrats, we are a well organized, hard working group of people. Who wouldn't want us backing them in the general election? Obama needs to wake up.
2.18.2008
Edwards and Obama Met Yesterday
There you have it.... it has happened. John (with Elizabeth) and Barack met yesterday in Chapel Hill, N.C.. According to the article, Obama and Edwards Sit Down in North Carolina, the moments captured in the pictures were allegedly taken at the end of the meeting. Obama's campaign released a statement about today's meeting:
"Sen. Obama visited this morning with John and Elizabeth Edwards at their home in Chapel Hill to discuss the state of the campaign and the pressing issues facing American families" (Source: Obama visits Edwards).
I have two links to share with you of video coverage of the meeting. Obama visits Edwards in Chapel Hill actually has video of Obama's exit as seen in the pictures above. Barack Obama Speaks Exclusively with NewsChannel 7 from Wausau, Wisconsin spoke with Obama. In the middle of the interview, the reporter asks him about the meeting that took place today. He basically says this has been an ongoing dialogue with John but he just hadn't seen him since before he dropped out of the race. He also said the meeting didn't secure an endorsement. Let the countdown begin.... who will John Edwards endorse? Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? Let the games begin!
2.15.2008
Halting an Endorsement Rumor.... for Now
Some of you may have seen "Edwards is rumored to be flying to Ohio to endorse Hillary" floating around over at the DailyKos. It was a comment stating just what the link says, it is rumored that John is flying to Ohio to endorse Hillary. There was NO SOURCE for the information. The one interesting thing to read in this area are the comments. One poster said,
"Actually, it's Davis Bender on Rachel Maddow. Two Edwards supporters who aren't happy about the prospect of a Hillary endorsement. Bender (Political analyst for Air America)said he's hearing the rumors, so give that the level of credence you wish."
There is and has been talk of a Hillary endorsement as of late but they are all missing sources. I think this links back to the meeting John and Hillary had and to my knowledge, the "Obama-Edwards" meeting has yet to happen. I am not saying it isn't going to happen because Obama has been quoted stating, "We're gonna make it happen". I think it comes down to Obama and Edwards wanting the same opportunity to meet without a media spectacle in Chapel Hill. It is a waiting game.... and I know it is driving many of you crazy but we will hear something soon. I still think it comes down to before the Texas and Ohio primaries. The waiting game continues....
There is and has been talk of a Hillary endorsement as of late but they are all missing sources. I think this links back to the meeting John and Hillary had and to my knowledge, the "Obama-Edwards" meeting has yet to happen. I am not saying it isn't going to happen because Obama has been quoted stating, "We're gonna make it happen". I think it comes down to Obama and Edwards wanting the same opportunity to meet without a media spectacle in Chapel Hill. It is a waiting game.... and I know it is driving many of you crazy but we will hear something soon. I still think it comes down to before the Texas and Ohio primaries. The waiting game continues....
Tom Lantos Interview
Please watch this very good Tom Lantos video. Tom Lantos of California, was only Holocaust survivor ever to serve in Congress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUVflx1qIr4
Dick Cavett interviews Congressman Tom Lantos tells about his experience in a work labor camp during World War II. He escaped to a safe house established by Raul Wallenberg but later learned he lost his whole family in the Nazi's in Death Camps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUVflx1qIr4
Dick Cavett interviews Congressman Tom Lantos tells about his experience in a work labor camp during World War II. He escaped to a safe house established by Raul Wallenberg but later learned he lost his whole family in the Nazi's in Death Camps.
Edwards dared to tell the truth -- and paid for it
VIEWPOINTS
by David Rossie
Commentary, February 10, 2008
"Johnny, I hardly knew ye."
-- A 19th century Irish folk song about a young man who lost his life while serving with the British East India Company.
The 19th century is long gone, and so too is the British East India Company -- which in a way was the precursor to Blackwater, but without the generous employee benefits, not the least of which is immunity for criminal acts. But never mind.
The song itself might stand as a sad farewell to the presidential candidacy of John Edwards, because thanks to the mass media, we never really got to know Edwards and what he stood for before he, like other Democratic hopefuls, was swept under by the tsunami-like coverage of Clinton and Obama.
Sure, we heard and read for a while about his rise from poor mill-hand's son to successful lawyer, but always with the snide aside that he was a trial lawyer, which is like the asterisk after Roger Maris' home-run record. Somehow there is something demeaning about being a lawyer who goes after the clients of corporate lawyers. Or so we're told.
And of course there were the smirking references to the $400 haircut by pundits who wouldn't dream of mocking W for flitting about the Persian Gulf gathering up baubles, bangles and beads from porcine sheiks.
It's not that Edwards didn't have anything to say. He had plenty to say, but a lot of it was unpleasant, such as his assertion that we were ignoring the reality of two Americas: the have-nots and the have-plentys-who-want-a-whole-lot-more. An America with the finest health care available -- to those who can afford it, and too bad about the 40 million or so others who can't.
But then, they can always go to the ER if they fall ill, as W pointed out.
It was easier to listen to abstractions about how it's time for a change and the power of experience, no matter how vaguely defined.
So Edwards was dismissed as just another populist, singing the same old tune he'd sung four years ago when he was doing his best to breathe life into John Kerry's sluggish campaign.
Perhaps it's not fair to say Edwards' cries went unheard.
Obama heard them. When it became clear, thanks to pundits such as Paul Krugmanm that Obama was trying to peddle a health care plan that only an insurance company could love, he adroitly paid lip service to Edwards' plan -- after Edwards dropped out.
But as far as the media were concerned, Edwards might as well have been Mike Gravel or Ron Paul. His ordeal was summed up emphatically one recent night during NBC's brief report on the previous night's Democratic debate, as described by Mrs. Greenspan. Ninety-nine percent of the coverage, predictably, was devoted to Mrs. Clinton and Obama once again reprising "The Bickersons." The other 1 percent consisted of what Mrs. Greenspan described as Edwards injecting a note of humor into the proceedings, when he reminded the moderators that "there are three of us in this debate."
That was it. End of coverage. Mrs. Greenspan and Brian laughed. How many of those who were interested in what Edwards might have had to say, laughed along with them?
Contrast the media's cavalier treatment of Edwards with their fawning coverage of a resurgent John McCain in his battle with the animatronic Mitt Romney.
Much has been written and spouted about Romney's abandonment of all the principles he espoused as governor of Massachusetts, and justifiably so. But McCain has matched him, stance for stance, flip for flop; everything from abortion, gay rights, Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and most of all his shameful embrace of Falwell and Robertson, both of whom he had earlier excoriated.
How to account for McCain's experience on the road to Damascus, or Minneapolis? Easy if you're David Brooks or Gail Collins.
In a column headed "The McCain Transition," Brooks ascribes it to "his character, his integrity, his honesty."
Collins' take: "McCain is all about honor and keeping his word."
Where are those grinning clowns who used to show up at Kerry speeches dressed as flip-flops when we need them? And where is Edwards now that we need him all the more?
by David Rossie
Commentary, February 10, 2008
"Johnny, I hardly knew ye."
-- A 19th century Irish folk song about a young man who lost his life while serving with the British East India Company.
The 19th century is long gone, and so too is the British East India Company -- which in a way was the precursor to Blackwater, but without the generous employee benefits, not the least of which is immunity for criminal acts. But never mind.
The song itself might stand as a sad farewell to the presidential candidacy of John Edwards, because thanks to the mass media, we never really got to know Edwards and what he stood for before he, like other Democratic hopefuls, was swept under by the tsunami-like coverage of Clinton and Obama.
Sure, we heard and read for a while about his rise from poor mill-hand's son to successful lawyer, but always with the snide aside that he was a trial lawyer, which is like the asterisk after Roger Maris' home-run record. Somehow there is something demeaning about being a lawyer who goes after the clients of corporate lawyers. Or so we're told.
And of course there were the smirking references to the $400 haircut by pundits who wouldn't dream of mocking W for flitting about the Persian Gulf gathering up baubles, bangles and beads from porcine sheiks.
It's not that Edwards didn't have anything to say. He had plenty to say, but a lot of it was unpleasant, such as his assertion that we were ignoring the reality of two Americas: the have-nots and the have-plentys-who-want-a-whole-lot-more. An America with the finest health care available -- to those who can afford it, and too bad about the 40 million or so others who can't.
But then, they can always go to the ER if they fall ill, as W pointed out.
It was easier to listen to abstractions about how it's time for a change and the power of experience, no matter how vaguely defined.
So Edwards was dismissed as just another populist, singing the same old tune he'd sung four years ago when he was doing his best to breathe life into John Kerry's sluggish campaign.
Perhaps it's not fair to say Edwards' cries went unheard.
Obama heard them. When it became clear, thanks to pundits such as Paul Krugmanm that Obama was trying to peddle a health care plan that only an insurance company could love, he adroitly paid lip service to Edwards' plan -- after Edwards dropped out.
But as far as the media were concerned, Edwards might as well have been Mike Gravel or Ron Paul. His ordeal was summed up emphatically one recent night during NBC's brief report on the previous night's Democratic debate, as described by Mrs. Greenspan. Ninety-nine percent of the coverage, predictably, was devoted to Mrs. Clinton and Obama once again reprising "The Bickersons." The other 1 percent consisted of what Mrs. Greenspan described as Edwards injecting a note of humor into the proceedings, when he reminded the moderators that "there are three of us in this debate."
That was it. End of coverage. Mrs. Greenspan and Brian laughed. How many of those who were interested in what Edwards might have had to say, laughed along with them?
Contrast the media's cavalier treatment of Edwards with their fawning coverage of a resurgent John McCain in his battle with the animatronic Mitt Romney.
Much has been written and spouted about Romney's abandonment of all the principles he espoused as governor of Massachusetts, and justifiably so. But McCain has matched him, stance for stance, flip for flop; everything from abortion, gay rights, Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and most of all his shameful embrace of Falwell and Robertson, both of whom he had earlier excoriated.
How to account for McCain's experience on the road to Damascus, or Minneapolis? Easy if you're David Brooks or Gail Collins.
In a column headed "The McCain Transition," Brooks ascribes it to "his character, his integrity, his honesty."
Collins' take: "McCain is all about honor and keeping his word."
Where are those grinning clowns who used to show up at Kerry speeches dressed as flip-flops when we need them? And where is Edwards now that we need him all the more?
2.14.2008
All About Texas and Ohio?
Jonathan Prince, John's Senior Advisor, has made a statement to the NYTimes which may indicate when John may endorse Hillary or Barack:
"You can't make a judgment until Ohio and Texas," said Jonathan Prince, who was a senior adviser to John Edwards of North Carolina, who quit the race two weeks ago. "In this campaign, every time he has surged ahead, voters take a pause. If momentum keeps slamming into a wall, then you do have to come down to the numbers."
Didn't I just say this? I will have to go back and re-read my blogs but I am pretty sure I said that if he didn't make an endorsement before or after Super Tuesday, then he is waiting for big guns like Texas and Ohio before he decides to back someone.... and would you look at that? Prince makes a statement about Texas and Ohio. Of course, this is all pure speculation as to a time John may endorse but.... can you blame the guy? Edwards Democrats haven't had it easy either.... making the decision to either stand our ground and vote for John.... vote for Hillary or Barack.... not vote at all.... and this is just the primaries and caucus'. Those of us who have voted in the primaries or caucus'.... we have been weighing our decisions for the general election.... support the Democrat nominee? Vote Republican? Vote Independent? Not vote at all? Write John's name in? I like that idea.... the Edwards Democratic Party needs to get John's name on the ballot! That way our voice still gets heard in the name of John Edwards! ;) At any rate, we may be getting closer folks to the answer of 'the John Edwards Endorsement'!
Didn't I just say this? I will have to go back and re-read my blogs but I am pretty sure I said that if he didn't make an endorsement before or after Super Tuesday, then he is waiting for big guns like Texas and Ohio before he decides to back someone.... and would you look at that? Prince makes a statement about Texas and Ohio. Of course, this is all pure speculation as to a time John may endorse but.... can you blame the guy? Edwards Democrats haven't had it easy either.... making the decision to either stand our ground and vote for John.... vote for Hillary or Barack.... not vote at all.... and this is just the primaries and caucus'. Those of us who have voted in the primaries or caucus'.... we have been weighing our decisions for the general election.... support the Democrat nominee? Vote Republican? Vote Independent? Not vote at all? Write John's name in? I like that idea.... the Edwards Democratic Party needs to get John's name on the ballot! That way our voice still gets heard in the name of John Edwards! ;) At any rate, we may be getting closer folks to the answer of 'the John Edwards Endorsement'!
2.12.2008
Scheduling Conflicts Halt Obama Meeting
The following article, The Edwards Primary, stated that it was a scheduling conflict as Obama's reason for not meeting with John yesterday. With that settled, it still doesn't calm the wonder that many of us have on who John is or is not going to endorse. I think if Obama meets John before March 4th, we may hear something before this date. Why? Texas and Ohio. Some big number delegate grabbing states. Much of the behind the scene chatter is stating that Clinton needs John's nod more than Obama because of his momentum. However, John may not be comfortable endorsing the "status quo" -- the very type he fought throughout his entire campaign. So why not the automatic win for Obama? I think because John is human. He doesn't want to be hasty. He wants to be fair. He heard what Clinton had to say.... hopefully he will hear what Obama has to say.... and then he will make (or not make) the difficult decision where not everyone is going to be happy. In such a historical election, he is in a rough spot. Some pundits say it doesn't matter what John Edwards thinks.... I disagree.... there are almost 500,000 of us who potentially could make or break the nomination and the general election. In a country where voter turnout isn't known to be good but has improved this election cycle, we Edwards Democrats still have a voice and I believe we can still make a difference. John's decision could make the difference of who's campaign will ride the wave to the nomination or shipwreck before the convention.
Obama Meeting a No-Go, What Does It Mean?
The big news story today was supposed to be the meeting between Obama and Edwards. It did not occur today afterall. The story is being spun a few different ways. Obama-Edwards meeting a no-go, for now states it is supposed to be re-scheduled according to Obama's campaign. No explanation as to why it was canceled. No date released at this time. Then, Obama Skips Visit to Court Edwards states it was a choice by Obama to skip the meeting because of his positive showing this past weekend. Finally, Obama on Edwards Meeting - "We're gonna make it happen." states just that.... he said he still wants to meet with John but would not elaborate any further.
I found an actual recent quote from John at salon.com:
"Speaking to a local radio station, Edwards explained the meetings: "I promised both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama [that] before I decided whether I would endorse anybody or who to endorse that I would meet with each of them. So that's what that was about."
So, with that in the back of your mind, John had agreed to meet with both of them. You can read it a few different ways.... this is what I've heard.... Clinton has the endorsement in the bag.... Obama's momentum has made him arrogantly cast John aside as unimportant.... Obama had a scheduling conflict.... what do you think?
I wanted to close by saying that I am sad the blogging activity will cease at JohnEdwards.com tomorrow. The Edwards cause cannot stop. We cannot stop. We are Edwards Democrats! Stay informed! Stay connected!
2.11.2008
JEFP Blog Closes Doors
Thank you for being part of our online community!
Tracy Russo in Quick Posts
2/11/2008 at 5:41 PM CDTThe John Edwards for President blog will go offline tomorrow, Tuesday, February 12th.
Before that happens, we want to thank you one more time for your support, participation and enthusiasm. It has been a huge part of our campaign, and we could not have imagined it any other way.
Elizabeth has called blogs "the new town squares" and bloggers the "modern day pamphleteers." With that thought in mind, we hope that you will continue to blog, chat, debate and discuss the issues that are important to you, and to our country, even if it is in a different square.
From all of us here at the Edwards campaign, thank you and best wishes.
2.10.2008
John Met with Clinton Thursday, Meeting with Obama Tomorrow
The story of the night! Word on the street tonight is Obama has momentum now with a successful weekend at the polls. There is also word that Clinton has replaced her campaign manager. Why is this important to us Edwards Democrats? Again, I have to stress that the "Edwards" support from us the voters or John himself could play a big role from here on out. According TBeau, a blogger at JohnEdwards.com, Hillary secretly visited with John Thursday morning at his home in Chapel Hill, N.C. The article goes on to state that Obama will have a meeting with John tomorrow as well. The article states he is "very torn" over who he wants to endorse. Things are heating up in the Edwards endorsement hunt daily. Keep it here folks! Tell your Edwardian friends to join us here nightly as well! ;)
2.09.2008
Why I Voted For John Edwards
http://www.rabbireport.com/archives/2008/02/why-i-voted-for.htm
Why I Voted For John Edwards
By Mark Rabinowitz
Ever since my choice for the democratic nomination, John Edwards, suspended his campaign, I have been besieged by friend and stranger alike, urging me to vote for Barack Obama. Literally no one I know has approached me about Hillary. Maybe that says something about my friends or Hillary or maybe it says something about me. It doesn't matter, because the only way I hold my nose and vote for her is if she's the nominee in November. The thing is, I couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama, either. Many of my friends are somewhat incredulous at my recalcitrance, but I have my reasons.
First a little background. My mother was a proud and politically active woman of mixed ethnicity but I think she identified most often as black. She was a filmmaker, author and journalist and paid close attention to the goings on of the day. She was deeply involved in the Civil Rights movement and I was raised in an politically aware home. But let's be honest, unless you know me or are very race conscious, you wouldn't know I was anything but Caucasian (or maybe Latino. I get that on the streets of NYC all the time). That said, I was raised in a multi-ethnic home and am myself very conscious of my heritage.
I am a feminist and a civil rights activist and I would be more than happy to see the first woman president or the first black president. The thing is, I will not and cannot sacrifice my overall political beliefs and I flatly refuse to do something so base and crass as to sell my vote for race or gender. This year's race for the democratic nomination has been framed by the media for over a year as Clinton vs. Obama and as a result, the candidate most committed to the wellbeing of the people, John Edwards, was marginalized from the start. He really never had a chance and for that, the mainstream media should be ashamed. It's clear, at least from my perspective, that John Edwards preached what was fair and good: An end to the dominance of Big Pharma and the insurance company lobby, the return of the government to the people, the end of corporate media dominance...oh.... Ooops!
So, John Edwards was, for my money, the most progressive, committed and honest person in the democratic race and he got my support. When he dropped out, I fully expected a switch to click in my head and start to get excited about Obama, but you know what? I couldn't do it. I don't like his heathcare plan, he strikes me as an appeaser, I don't fully trust him and he never says anything. It drives me nuts. His speeches are like revival meetings and while I love a good call-and-response, "Yes we can" doesn't really say much besides, well, "yes we can." Besides, I'm loyal. When I support someone, I support them and in the absence of an endorsement from Edwards, I felt no compelling urge to vote for Obama.
The thing is, it's all about November, for me and who can beat John McCain (for he's clearly the likely nominee). Unfortunately, the only candidate who was the clear winner in that contest is no longer in the race. In poll after poll, you democrats all over the country named Edwards as the candidate you thought could most beat the republicans in November and in poll after poll you named Edwards as the candidate who most cared about people. And what did you all do? You voted against your interests and against the interests of the country as a whole. I just don't get it. If you really thought Obama or Clinton were more likely to win, the results would make sense, but you didn't. You said Edwards was a better candidate and cared more about you and then you went out and voted for someone else. Shame on you.
Clinton Calls Edwards a "Fighter"
From CBS News' Fernando Suarez:
LEWISTON, MAINE -- During a town hall meeting today, Hillary Clinton opened the floor to questions and a woman, who identified herself as a former supporter of John Edwards, told Clinton she is now supporting her.
The woman said she hopes Clinton will “consider John’s policies and his fighting spirit when you get to the White House.”
Clinton, who had mentioned Edwards' work on health care in her speech (something she has not done in quite a while), told the woman she and Edwards “have a lot in common.” Clinton called Edwards a “fighter” and told the woman, “I will be a fighter and I intend to ask John Edwards to be a part of anything I intend to do in the White House.”
Edwards has not formally endorsed any candidate since dropping out late last month. But both Clinton and Barack Obama have said they intend to court his base of supporters - in fact, Obama told reporters he spoke to Edwards a few days ago but wouldn't elaborate on their conversation.
When asked whether Clinton’s comments on Edwards were calculated, her campaign denied that the reference to Edwards earlier in her speech was planned.
CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic contributed to this report.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/02/09/politics/fromtheroad/entry3812519.shtml
2.07.2008
It's a Trap!
As if this election couldn't get even more ridiculous....
It's a trap! The following rumor is not true.... John Edwards has not endorsed Barack Obama. I repeat.... John Edwards has not endorsed Barack Obama. When I was searching the news tonight I noticed "Did you mean 'John Edwards endorses Obama?'" in my news searching for John Edwards. I was like, "WHAT?" Then I heard over at the DailyKos it was a rumor that started by an Obama supporter but Laura cleared it up with this article: John Edwards Endorses NOBODY (so far). John has not endorsed anyone at this time.
It's a trap! DNC urges caucuses in Florida, Michigan. Who does this benefit? I guess it depends on who you support. If you think the DNC is trying to advance Hillary to give her a few more delegates against Obama.... you will think Clinton. If you think the DNC thinks an Obama caucus' turnout would benefit Obama.... you will think Obama. I think this whole idea is wrong. Why are they doing this now? E-mail the DNC to let them know how you feel. It was bad enough that our voices for John Edwards weren't heard in Florida AND even more particularly in Michigan. The DNC are a bunch of hypocrites. Punish the states and then reward them? I smell something rotten! Here is the contact info: http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact
It's a trap! The following rumor is not true.... John Edwards has not endorsed Barack Obama. I repeat.... John Edwards has not endorsed Barack Obama. When I was searching the news tonight I noticed "Did you mean 'John Edwards endorses Obama?'" in my news searching for John Edwards. I was like, "WHAT?" Then I heard over at the DailyKos it was a rumor that started by an Obama supporter but Laura cleared it up with this article: John Edwards Endorses NOBODY (so far). John has not endorsed anyone at this time.
It's a trap! DNC urges caucuses in Florida, Michigan. Who does this benefit? I guess it depends on who you support. If you think the DNC is trying to advance Hillary to give her a few more delegates against Obama.... you will think Clinton. If you think the DNC thinks an Obama caucus' turnout would benefit Obama.... you will think Obama. I think this whole idea is wrong. Why are they doing this now? E-mail the DNC to let them know how you feel. It was bad enough that our voices for John Edwards weren't heard in Florida AND even more particularly in Michigan. The DNC are a bunch of hypocrites. Punish the states and then reward them? I smell something rotten! Here is the contact info: http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact
2.06.2008
Post Super Tuesday: Where's Your Head At?
Super Tuesday is over but it was nice to see some of you 'John Edwards Democrats' out at the polls yesterday. I want to personally thank every person who is accounted for by a number in the following tally:
Alabama - 7,933 (99% of precincts)
Arizona - 21,902 (98% of the precincts)
Arkansas - 5,374 (94% of the precincts)
California - 170,013 (99% of the precincts)
Connecticut - 3,408 (100% of the precincts)
Delaware - 1,241 (100% of the precincts)
Georgia - 17,990 (99% of the precincts)
Idaho - 137 (100% of the precincts)
Illinois - 39,001 (99% of the precincts)
Kansas - 53 (100% of precincts)
Massachusetts - 19,889 (100% of the precincts)
Minnesota - 972 (87% of the precincts)
Missouri - 16,747 (100% of the precincts)
New Jersey - 14,607 (99% of the precincts)
New Mexico - 2,025 (98% of the precincts)
New York - 19,725 (99% of the precincts)
North Dakota - 283 (100% of the precincts)
Oklahoma - 42,718 (100% of the precincts)
Tennessee - 27,644 (100% of the precincts)
Utah - 3,525 (99% of the precincts)
This amounts to approximately 415,187. Almost a half a million Edwardians roaming the great USA. If I could shake the hand of every one of these people who are represented by these numbers, I would. We are strong group. We were not intimated by the media or the candidates supporters to buy into the media hype. I know there are actually more of us who are out there but made the difficult decision to turn their vote to Obama or Clinton.... and I am sure it wasn't easy for them. All I can say is, I have no regrets with my vote. I believe it was my friend Mari who said we need to get those bumper stickers out, "Don't Blame Me, I Voted Edwards". lol :) This is true. I don't know what is going to happen now. The pundits were saying on Super Tuesday that if Clinton won CA, NJ, and NY -- she would likely get the nomination.... and she did. Scary thought. Here's my thing.... if Clinton gets the nomination, I don't see her asking John to be her VP.... and if she did.... I do not see him accepting because it would be a hypocrisy. The status quo/change ticket. Um, no. If Obama won the nomination, I could see him asking John to be VP. Change/Change ticket. Nice. However, most people believe John really meant what he said when he said he will not run for VP. As you know, some pundits call him a "loser" VP because he didn't help Kerry. To me, Kerry hurt Kerry. Not Edwards hurt Kerry.
With the Super Tuesday madness over, where do you stand? Do you think Clinton will win the nomination or do you think Obama is going to clean up the majority of the remaining states? Will you support Clinton or Obama if they are the nominee? Are any of you considering voting Republican? What do you think will likely be the face off: What Democrat v. What Republican? I am full of questions tonight! I want to know where your heads are at. :)
Alabama - 7,933 (99% of precincts)
Arizona - 21,902 (98% of the precincts)
Arkansas - 5,374 (94% of the precincts)
California - 170,013 (99% of the precincts)
Connecticut - 3,408 (100% of the precincts)
Delaware - 1,241 (100% of the precincts)
Georgia - 17,990 (99% of the precincts)
Idaho - 137 (100% of the precincts)
Illinois - 39,001 (99% of the precincts)
Kansas - 53 (100% of precincts)
Massachusetts - 19,889 (100% of the precincts)
Minnesota - 972 (87% of the precincts)
Missouri - 16,747 (100% of the precincts)
New Jersey - 14,607 (99% of the precincts)
New Mexico - 2,025 (98% of the precincts)
New York - 19,725 (99% of the precincts)
North Dakota - 283 (100% of the precincts)
Oklahoma - 42,718 (100% of the precincts)
Tennessee - 27,644 (100% of the precincts)
Utah - 3,525 (99% of the precincts)
This amounts to approximately 415,187. Almost a half a million Edwardians roaming the great USA. If I could shake the hand of every one of these people who are represented by these numbers, I would. We are strong group. We were not intimated by the media or the candidates supporters to buy into the media hype. I know there are actually more of us who are out there but made the difficult decision to turn their vote to Obama or Clinton.... and I am sure it wasn't easy for them. All I can say is, I have no regrets with my vote. I believe it was my friend Mari who said we need to get those bumper stickers out, "Don't Blame Me, I Voted Edwards". lol :) This is true. I don't know what is going to happen now. The pundits were saying on Super Tuesday that if Clinton won CA, NJ, and NY -- she would likely get the nomination.... and she did. Scary thought. Here's my thing.... if Clinton gets the nomination, I don't see her asking John to be her VP.... and if she did.... I do not see him accepting because it would be a hypocrisy. The status quo/change ticket. Um, no. If Obama won the nomination, I could see him asking John to be VP. Change/Change ticket. Nice. However, most people believe John really meant what he said when he said he will not run for VP. As you know, some pundits call him a "loser" VP because he didn't help Kerry. To me, Kerry hurt Kerry. Not Edwards hurt Kerry.
With the Super Tuesday madness over, where do you stand? Do you think Clinton will win the nomination or do you think Obama is going to clean up the majority of the remaining states? Will you support Clinton or Obama if they are the nominee? Are any of you considering voting Republican? What do you think will likely be the face off: What Democrat v. What Republican? I am full of questions tonight! I want to know where your heads are at. :)
2.04.2008
It's still Edwards
Susan Madrak from Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-madrak/its-still-edwards_b_84774.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-madrak/its-still-edwards_b_84774.html
One of my readers asked who I'd vote for, now that Edwards has left the race.
If I were going to cast a ballot Tuesday, I'd still be voting for John Edwards. Why?
Because I don't trust either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to carry the banner of progressive causes. The only power we have is in our votes, and if one of them walks off with enough delegates to pin down the nomination Tuesday, they have no incentive whatsoever to keep their word to Edwards. They will immediately start moving to the right and currying the conservative vote.
We're supposed to take it on faith that both of these candidates are a lot more liberal than they appear. Well, it's going to take more than a few speeches to convince me.
What would convince me? A candidate who takes a strong, uncompromising position on something that would benefit us instead of industry. Neither of their health care plans does it for me, although I'd give Hillary's the edge. Obama lost points with his various comments about how universal health care isn't possible. (Or practical, or whatever.)
Hillary is a triangulator and a corporatist; I think we're all familiar with her liabilities. Obama is someone who came up in Illinois statehouse politics - a place that's hardly a bastion of ethics. He showed exceedingly poor judgment in allowing his friend - someone who was then already under a cloud - to cut him a deal on the land next to his house. (Didn't I just hear him say today that it was just as important to be right on the first day as it was to be ready?)
And finally, I'd like to note that I do have exceedingly sound instincts. (Go back and read my posts from the past six years.) Although I was a big Dean supporter and someone who didn't think John Kerry had what it took to win (or govern effectively), it didn't make me sick to my stomach to vote for him.
I feel sick now. I don't believe Hillary will back down from the unitary executive trend if elected, and I don't believe she's strong enough to prevent another war. If anything, I think she's raring to prove herself "strong enough" to be commander-in-chief.
And I don't believe Obama is either strong or ruthless enough to root out the right-wing extremists with whom Bush has populated the government.
I hope I'm wrong. I pray I'm wrong. But I fear for our country. I don't think either of them will do what needs to be done. Yes, there will be some improvements. But as to the future direction of our country, I don't know where they want to lead.
I'm Sticking with You John!
Tomorrow is our day. Super Tuesday. As you know, I am not conflicted with my decision to vote for John Edwards tomorrow. :) However, I do feel for those who have decided not to vote for John.... believe it or not. I understand many of you feel like a vote for John is a wasted vote and you want to vote for either Obama or Clinton to support the party against the potential Republican nominee. I respect that. I meant it when I said that we all have a difficult decision to make with John's campaign suspended. We can still vote for John and collect delegates. What I am asking of you when you go to the polls tomorrow is to think about how John Edwards set the Democratic Party platform this election cycle on health care, poverty, rural America, tax reform, working families, predatory mortgages, import safety, ally relationships, the environment, and much more. If you have decided John will not receive your vote, please make your choice on who you believe will best represent the Edwards agenda. I now have an opinion on which candidate I believe most closely matches John's ideas. We know both Obama and Clinton have used and continue to use many of John's ideas but I will not share that at this time who I think is the closest. :) Sorry. Back on track here, now, for those like me who have decided to vote for John Edwards on Super Tuesday, our day is simple. We turn up to vote. Vote John Edwards. The end. So much simplier than deciding your second choice, isn't it? ;) With that said, please watch these two G-R-E-A-T videos supporting voting for John tomorrow!
Sticking with Edwards
By: ruleraddison (YouTube)
Stand by Your Man!
By: RosyB9 (YouTube)
Super Tuesday.... One Choice.... One Voice.... One Vote.... John Edwards!
Sticking with Edwards
By: ruleraddison (YouTube)
Stand by Your Man!
By: RosyB9 (YouTube)
Super Tuesday.... One Choice.... One Voice.... One Vote.... John Edwards!
Edwards: True Blue Peoples' President
From American Chronicle:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/51109
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/51109
John Edwards a true blue Peoples' President
By Isabel P. BallFebruary 03, 2008
"2 down, 48 more to go," John Edwards, forever optimistic and sunny, his index and middle finger prompting, blared in his concession speech after a third place win in New Hampshire.
Then, came South Carolina, his hometown, and in the preliminary gave him a conservative 18%. Again, he came in third, outpaced and seemingly forgotten by the same population that gave him a win in 2004. Once again, John, with grace and dignity conceded with his usual beaming, winsome smile and a promise to fight on to the end of the race, focused to the convention and all the way to the Whitehouse.
Again, the caucus in Florida gained him another third spot. There was no concession made since some legal bind disallowed the democrats from campaigning in the state. But according to some reports, Hillary did appear and campaigned in Florida, and that unethical tenacity bagged for her the first slot in the polls.
One quiet day, with suddenness--like a sneaking natural disaster--totally unexpected, John Edwards, was ironically in the headlines. I saw it flashed in the CNN, "EDWARDS WITHDRAWING FROM THE RACE." My heart sank like the Titanic.
Exactly, in a manner that the media reporters had always wanted to blitz to America and to the world the news story of an obit of John Edwards candidacy, was an actuality on that ominous day on Jan. 30. I was imagining the corporatocracy and the mediatocracy beaming and rejoicing, while to the poor, the hapless, and the middle class of America grieved.
Apart from the class that he sought to bring forth prosperity into the lives, many other Americans of varying status who admired his devotion to his unpopular, populist causes shared in the gloom. To these, many supporters and followers, it was an event and show of passion equal to when an American hero has departed.
At John Edwards blogs, are entries of followers drowning in sorrow, pain, and tears inconsolable as I am, as I have felt in the few times in history at the passing of some great individuals. The most recent times were during the death of Princess Diana and John-John Kennedy. They have so much affected the hearts of millions for their humanitarian deeds, dignity, and humility, thus, befitting a public mourning.
To our gratitude, John Edwards is a living legend and hero for all that he stood for as a candidate, empathic and genuinely caring of the little people. Even in his speech, his populist platform, which he admitted as, "not getting any vote," to him it is the cause of his life and described as personal to him. At least, my fear that John might meet an untimely demise in the hands of some delusional mind, upon gaining his quest, such as often befalls upon individuals so brave and resolute in their position I can now put to rest.
When did America ever have a candidate so purposeful, so dedicated, so vehement even it is foolhardy? In recent memory, it is only John Edwards unwavering in his script delivered on his every stump speech of his strong disaffection with the lobbyists, greedy corporations that impoverish and enslave great many Americans. Some say he is like a broken record and rote even to his own supporters.
No, John, would not even think about changing the text and tone of his message, angry by some media standard, because it is truly what he believes in, derived from what he sees now happening in America being divided by a widening gap between the rich and the poor Americans.
John is genuinely empathic to the cause having lived in a community of factory workers, and hailing from a hard-working, poor family himself. He is an epitome of someone who has lived the American dream, through diligence and education. Being the only member in his family to have a college degree, John, is a brilliant trial lawyer, truly caring of the hapless citizens. While he helped lift the lives of some hapless victims of negligent, greedy corporations, as well, he was rewarded gratuitously—thus--elevating himself to a respectable status as a millionaire. Because he has experienced it, therefore, he believes in such opportunity, and he tries to pave the way to the many Americans a way to achieving that dream, if not lesser.
For all his endowments as a man with a pretty face, a hair that is luxuriant even for a 54-year-old man, his mansion that was a fruit of his labor, and some hedge fund, to the green-eyed status quo he became the object of satirical criticisms, which somehow affected his political image, rather irreparably.
No doubt, in the roster of Democrats, his political programs stand out, being the more progressive-minded of the other two rivals, Clinton and Obama. John´s progressive agendas were original, and copied by the rivals; a true universal health plan, total and specific time to pull out troops from Iraq, an economic stimulus package to abate recession, a clean and honest government free from lobbyist influence, are among the popular ones.
Unfortunately, the media gung ho and enamored at Obama, a black candidate, and Clinton, the first woman candidate as being historic, dimmed on John´s programs. Blasted by some blatant conspiratorial maneuvering, he received dim-lighted reception from the media, dumping his candidacy to total insignificance. According to a Journalism Academy´s research, John Edwards only received a ratio of 1:5 media exposure as against those allocated to Clinton and Obama. This is happening in America because of the power of the corporations. Unfortunately, John, our modern day knight was jousted.
The fading away of John Edwards in the political scene, though, hopefully, literally, only a suspension--meant the loss of hopes and dreams to the burgeoning numbers of the less fortunate Americans that the trial lawyer, a millworkers son, ardently espoused in his campaigns fearlessly. As he often flaunts, he is the only candidate that takes no dime from any lobbyist or corporation. Operating on a clear and honest conscience, John is much more straightforward and blatant than most conventional politicians. He owes no one a favor by which to influence him in his policies. He is indebted to no one, but to his constituency and only to his supporters beholden to his programs to change America.
While America remains as the frontier of everything progressive in all fields of human endeavor and civilization, sadly, it is more and more in the stranglehold of a new class, that of the super wealthy corporations that get wealthier by the day, along with its paid cohorts, such as the reporters and anchor people that play favoritism and force feed their brand of faux pas punditry down the throats of the people. Usually, the media cater to candidates that have money, and those with agendas that are not in direct conflict with the corporations´ ravenous appetite for money and glory.
Disguised as trying to help America, these corporations, because of their greed, are contributing to the peoples´ declining economic status in a country looked upon as the wealthiest in the world, and without a doubt.
The devaluation of John Edwards´ principles and ideas, as a politician of true hope and change, has further pushed the other America, the less fortunate class, farther away into an island of desolation. To us supporters is thrust upon the herculean task of keeping his ideals and hopefully, his campaign alive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
